Agrégateur de flux

Summary and Key Points: Submarines have evolved into fast, stealthy, and highly maneuverable platforms, with the Seawolf-class submarine from the U.S. Navy leading the pack as the fastest and most advanced, capable of exceeding 35 miles per hour and diving up to 2,000 feet.

-Following closely is the Virginia-class, a versatile submarine designed for modern warfare, with a top speed of 28 miles per hour. Russia’s Yasen-M class, known for its ability to carry hypersonic missiles, cruises at 40 miles per hour and dives to nearly 2,000 feet.

-China’s Shang-class submarine showcases the country’s growing naval prowess, reaching speeds of 34 miles per hour and diving to over 2,200 feet.

-Finally, the UK's Vanguard-class, central to the Royal Navy’s nuclear deterrent, offers reliable performance with a speed of 28 miles per hour and a diving capability of over 1,300 feet. These submarines represent the pinnacle of underwater warfare technology.

Top 5 Fastest Submarines in the World: Speed, Stealth, and Power

Submarines may be an older technological platform, but each iteration gets better than the last. 

Submarines are meant to be stealthy. More than that, though, subs must possess a high degree of speed and the ability to dive fast. They also must be highly maneuverable. 

The list below, while far from comprehensive, uses those qualities to determine the five best fast submarines in the world.

5. Vanguard-Class Submarine

Once the greatest naval power in the world, the British Royal Navy today is a shadow of its former glory. Nevertheless, the British still possess some capabilities that make them competitive at sea. The Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarine is an excellent heir to the legacy of the great imperial navy that came before it. 

Designed to fight the Cold War, these boats for now are still the primary submarine of the Royal Navy. 

A Vanguard-class submarine displaces just shy of 16,000 tons when submerged. She’s powered by one Rolls Royce pressurized water-cooled nuclear reactor that supplies steam to two sets of General Electric geared turbines delivering 27,500 horsepower to one shaft. 

Her speed is a respectable 28 miles per hour. She can also dive in excess of 1,300 feet. The numbers don’t lie. The Vanguard class is a solid sub. 

4. Shang-Class Submarine

China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy is steadily advancing its submarine capabilities to rival those of the Americans, Russians, and other advanced navies. The nuclear-powered Shang-class leads the way. 

The Shang class has a 7,000-ton displacement and can carry around 100 crewmembers. Its top cruising speed is about 30 knots, or 34 miles per hour, and these boats can dive down to 2,296 feet.

As for this submarine’s maneuverability, one analyst has written that, “China can ensure that [the Shang-class] submarine has a breakthrough in underwater navigation performance, and the nuclear power propulsion system has sufficient power to match the hull tonnage. Under better circumstances, [the Shang-class] is entirely possible to achieve relatively excellent underwater speed and underwater maneuverability.” 

3. Yasen-M-class Submarine

Russia may be more of a continental power rather than a maritime power, but the Russian Navy can build some remarkable underwater systems. 

The Yasen-M class is especially impressive. Recently, the Russians converted this class of “tough” Russian subs (as Business Insider labeled them in 2023) into hypersonic missile carriers, making the Yasen-M the only active submarine in the world capable of deploying these next-level weapons. In June, the Russians deployed one of these boats in a flotilla to Cuba, skirting the U.S. Eastern seaboard in the process. 

The Yasen-M can cruise up to 35 knots (40 miles per hour) and can safely dive to about 1,968 feet. She displaces around 13,800 tons. 

In all, the Russians have one of the speediest, most lethal undersea platforms in existence today. Americans underestimate the Yasen-M at their own peril.

2. Virginia-class Submarine

When America went looking for a replacement for the iconic Los Angeles-class attack submarine, it first landed on the highly complex but expensive Seawolf class. 

Sadly, that submarine’s cost and the lack of a Soviet enemy made Congress rethink its decision to make the Seawolf class the new primary attack submarine for America’s Navy. Sent back to the drawing board, the Navy produced the Virginia class. 

A Virginia-class submarine goes about 28 miles per hour. Because the boats are relatively new, the Navy is not as forthcoming with certain design details. For example, the Navy is coy about this sub’s maximum operating depth, listing it as “more than 800 feet.” It carries 15 officers and 117 enlisted personnel as well. 

A highly maneuverable and fast submarine, the Virginia-class is one of the finest attack submarines ever built. 

1. Seawolf-class Submarine

Now for the blue label of modern submarines, the U.S. Navy’s Seawolf class. As noted above, this boat was meant to replace the Los Angeles-class attack subs beginning in the early 1990s, until Congress got cold feet. 

At roughly $4.3 billion per unit, one can hardly blame them. But given the kind of threat environment the U.S. faces today, a fleet of these submarines might have been the best long-term investment the Navy could have made.

Alas, there’s no going back. The Navy currently possesses only three of these submarines, and there are no plans to reconstitute the production line. Besides, the Navy prefers the Virginia-class submarine, which, while a versatile and fast boat as you just read, has limits to its speed and maneuverability that the Seawolf class does not share.

This boat can go in excess of 35 miles per hour. The Seawolf class is highly maneuverable and can dive up to 2,000 feet, with a maximum crush depth ranging from 2,400 to 3,000 feet beneath the waves. 

The Seawolf-class submarine threat is widely believed to keep the Chinese and Russians up at night. It is not only the fastest submarine in the world today, it is also the best submarine ever built. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Several animal diseases made a comeback across the European Union this summer, forcing authorities to impose transport restrictions and the culling of thousands of livestock amid financial losses for farmers and concerns about the potential impact on the bloc’s exports.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operates the largest fleet of F-16s outside the U.S., with over 300 airframes, including the specialized F-16I Sufa variant.

-Designed to meet the specific needs of Israel's Air Force, the F-16I includes significant upgrades such as conformal fuel tanks for extended range, an advanced helmet-mounted cueing system, and an enhanced electronic warfare suite. These modifications make the Sufa a critical component of Israel's military, allowing it to carry out complex air-to-ground missions effectively.

-The F-16I has been a key asset in operations such as the 2021 conflict with Hamas in Gaza and is expected to remain in service for years to come.

F-16I Sufa: The Thunderstorm in Israel’s Air Defense Arsenal

The Israel Defense Forces fly the largest contingent of the F-16 outside of the U.S. Air Force, with more than 300 airframes in their arsenal.

Nicknamed Sufa, or thunderstorm in Hebrew, the two-seat variant of the F-16 – the F-16I Sufa – was specifically designed to meet the requirements of Israel's Air Force.

While the platform has some shortcomings, Israel’s Sufa variant boasts unique modifications that make it a critical part of the Jewish state’s military program. 

F-16I upgrades the original

 Originally developed by General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin), the F-16 Fighting Falcon took its first flight in 1976. The fighter jet was designed to rectify some of the shortcomings in the aircraft that flew in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The Falcon’s increased thrust-to-weight ratio and smaller frame made it an air-superiority platform, with improved air-to-air training for fighter pilots. Similar to the F-15, the Fighting Falcon was also a premier airframe for withstanding higher g-forces. 

An initial contract between Lockheed-Martin and Israel allocated up to 110 new F-16Is by 2003. According to former Lockheed Martin Vice President John Bean, “[The Sufa program] illustrates the strong bond between Lockheed Martin and Israel; we hope to strengthen that relationship through our continuing commitment to this program." 

The first fleet arrived in Israel in 2004 and featured a range of specialized modifications, including changes to the Falcon’s avionics, instrumentation, and weapons support systems. The F-16I is fitted with Israeli-designed conformal fuel tanks that extend the jet’s flight range by increasing the fuel it can hold by 50%. The placement of the tanks also allows the wings’ inner store stations, which are typically utilized for external tanks, to be available for weapons storage. This variation alone doubles the Sufa’s air-to-ground weapons capacity.

The F-16I’s Elbit Dash IV display shortens the lock-on process time for engagements, and the aircraft uses a helmet-mounted cueing system. This Israeli development can link aircraft information such as height and speed to the system, enabling weapons to target enemy aircraft using sight only. Dash IV allows the pilot to locate targets at high angles off the nose of the fighter, providing 360-degree information to the pilot everywhere they look. 

A key aerial asset

Arguably the most significant modification made to the F-16I Sufa is in its electronic warfare suite and avionics. Approximately half of the Falcon’s avionics were replaced with Israeli innovations including the aerial towed decoy. The Sufa’s electronic warfare suite incorporates radar warning systems and jamming capabilities, including the Elisra SPS 3000 self-protection jammer.

The F-16I Sufa has been active in Israel’s air force missions for nearly two decades, and the platform remains a critical asset. It continues to carry out important tasks. During a 2021 Israel-Hamas flare-up in Gaza, Sufas comprised the majority of the aircraft responsible for striking the terror group’s underground tunnel network and other weapons depots. With the help of the F-15I Ra’am and F-35I Adir stealth fighters, Operation Guardian of the Walls was successful.

The F-16I Sufa will likely remain in Israel’s aerial arsenal for years to come.

About the Author: Defense Expert, Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel.

Image Credit: All Images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Top 5 Points on the F-35 You Need to Know: The F-35 Lightning II program, the most advanced jet in the skies today, has faced numerous challenges and is now the most expensive defense program in history, with an estimated lifetime cost of over $2 trillion.

-The program's complexity arises from its three variants (A, B, and C), each tailored to meet the specific needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, replacing multiple older aircraft.

-Despite efforts to reduce costs, sustainment and operational expenses have risen significantly, partly due to the extended operational life of the F-35 and inflation.

-The program's high costs are justified by its ability to streamline multiple mission sets into a single, versatile aircraft, making it a logistical asset for the U.S. military.

-The F-35 program’s complexity stems from its three variants (A, B, and C), each designed to meet the specific needs of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, replacing multiple older aircraft.

F-35 Lightning II: The $2 Trillion Fighter That’s Reshaping U.S. Air Power

The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced jet in the skies today. However, its journey to the skies hasn’t been easy. Indeed, the F-35 program had to overcome several challenges and setbacks to be where it is today. To a certain extent, these challenges continue to this day.

According to the latest assessment by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the F-35 Program will cost more than $2 trillion during its lifetime. This astounding cost makes it the most expensive defense program in recent history and one of the most expensive in military history in general.

Specifically, the GAO report estimates $1.6 trillion in sustainment costs, which include operational demands and maintenance – this is about 45 percent higher than the previous estimate in 2018 ($1.1 trillion). It also estimates approximately $445 billion in acquisition costs, which include the development and procurement of the stealth fighter jet.

One of the main reasons for the hefty half a trillion dollars increase in sustainment costs is the fact that the U.S. military plans to operate the F-35 fighter for an additional decade, or until 2088. Another reason is the higher inflation.

The fact that the GAO had to revise its estimate within six years coupled with the ongoing production and delivery of the aircraft, could indicate that the F-35 Program’s cost might further increase in the near future.

Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office have tried to bring costs down but without significant success. Nevertheless, for many, the high cost and challenges surrounding the F-35 Program have a reasonable explanation.

F-35 Stealth Fighter: It Can Do It All? 

Much like the Russian Babushka wooden dolls that fit several similar toys of different sizes in each other, the F-35 Lightning II isn’t just one aircraft and isn’t intended to replace just one aircraft.

The F-35 comes in three versions: A, B, and C. Although they are essentially the same aircraft in terms of capabilities, each is designed differently to meet the different demands of the U.S. military’s services. Essentially, Lockheed Martin designed three different aircraft in one, and that is reflected in some of the costs.

The F-35A is the conventional take-off and landing aircraft that operates from runways; this is the version used by the Air Force and most of the 19 countries that comprise the F-35 Program.

The F-35B is the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the aircraft and can take off and land like a helicopter but still fly like a fighter jet; this version is used by the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as several foreign partners.

Finally, the F-35C is the aircraft carrier version of the aircraft and is designed to withstand the extreme pressures of carrier operations; this iteration is used only by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

In addition, the three versions of the F-35 Lightning II are going to replace several older aircraft, including the A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft, AV-88 Harrier STOVL fighter jet, and also probably the F-16.

As such, they include capabilities that would normally be spread over several aircraft. This streamlining of mission sets in a single aircraft is a logistical miracle for the U.S. military and will benefit it in a time of war.

About the Author

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a Greek Army veteran (National service with 575th Marines Battalion and Army HQ). Johns Hopkins University. You will usually find him on the top of a mountain admiring the view and wondering how he got there.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States Navy’s Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, crucial to the nation's nuclear deterrent, are rarely seen or discussed publicly due to their stealth missions.

-However, in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa revealed the location of the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) in the Norwegian Sea, accompanied by the USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon aircraft, along with an E-6B Mercury “doomsday plane.”

-This unusual disclosure is believed to be a strategic response to recent Russian naval activities, including the deployment of Russian naval vessels to the Caribbean and exercises in the Mediterranean. The reveal serves as a reminder of the Ohio-class submarines' destructive capabilities.

Why the U.S. Navy Unveiled the Location of a Nuclear-Armed Submarine

The United States Navy's Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines remain a key component of the nation's nuclear triad and serve as a nuclear deterrent. The warships are often spoken/written about – yet rarely seen. As part of the "Silent Service," the submarines spent much of their patrols under the sea, with their locations rarely disclosed.

However, on back in June, the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet posted on X – the social media platform formerly known as Twitter – to announce that USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) was operating in the Norwegian Sea, while the nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed sub was joined by the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG-60) and P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. In addition, an E-6B Mercury strategic communications plane was also reported to be flying over ahead.

The unusual disclosure--the submarine was surfaced and not under the waves operating in stealth--of the movements of any of the U.S. Navy's 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines is already highly unusual. However, the fact that an E-6B jet – one of the Navy's 16 modified Boeing 707s that serves as an airborne strategic command post and like the U.S. Air Force's E-4B is often known as a "doomsday plane" – makes it especially noteworthy.

The "boomers" as the submarines are known can disappear for months at a time. That is exactly what they were designed to do, as the boats remain the most destructive weapon system employed by the U.S. military. Given that there are just 14 in service – along with four more modified Ohio-class subs that serve as cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) – revealing the location of any isn't something taken lightly.

Yet, since 2020, the U.S. has disclosed the locations as a reminder of the Ohio class's destructive capability.

"Any decision to highlight the presence of one of these submarines, which are key components of America's nuclear deterrent arsenal and typically keep well out of sight while deployed, inherently sends a message to potential adversaries, such as Russia," TheWarZone reported.

So why did NAVEUR-NAVAF offer up the location of the SSBN-734?

The most likely answer is that it was a direct response to the Russian Navy's deployment of the guided-missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov and the Yasen-M-class nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine Kazan to the Caribbean earlier in June. The Russia flotilla – which also included the replenishment tank Academic Pashi and a tug boat Nikolay Chiker – made a rare port-of-call visit to Havana, Cuba, at the time

In addition, the Russian Navy had been conducting drills in the Mediterranean, involving its missile cruiser Varyag following another port visit to the Libyan city of Tobruk. The cruiser, which also took part in joint exercises with the Egyptian Navy, is quite far from her home port, as she is the flagship of the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Top Points You Need to Know: Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is widely regarded as a national embarrassment, plagued by technical issues, accidents, and frequent breakdowns. Originally commissioned in 1991, the carrier was meant to project Soviet naval power, but it has since become a symbol of Russia's declining military capabilities.

-Despite its numerous problems, Russia continues to invest in the carrier, likely due to national pride and a desire to maintain carrier operational capabilities.

-However, many analysts believe that the ship is beyond saving and that Russia would be better off investing in a new generation of carriers.

Why Russia Clings to Its Problematic Aircraft Carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the smoke-spewing, broken down Admiral Kuznetsov, is described by the Russian Navy as a “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser.” While that might sound impressive, it is not. Admiral Kuznetsov is a continuing embarrassment for the proud Russian military.

The only reason one can assume that the Russians want to keep this national embarrassment around is to train crews for the future, supposedly better, aircraft carrier fleet that Moscow has been planning to build since 2017. 

Still, the carrier is a smoldering embarrassment that any other nation would have scrapped years ago. Indeed, Admiral Kuznetsov was more of an experiment than anything else – one undertaken at a time when the Soviet government was on its way to history’s dustbin. 

A Brief History of the Admiral Kuznetsov

Originally laid down in 1982 and commissioned in 1991, the same year that the USSR collapsed, Admiral Kuznetsov was a product of the Soviet Union’s ambitions for a greater navy. The carrier was intended to project Soviet air power and provide a strategic advantage in any potential conflict.

Even at the start of this project, though, Moscow had to make compromises – if not for budgetary constraints or technological limitations, then for strategic disinformation purposes. For instance, its qualification of being a, “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” was done expressly to skirt international rules. Russia is a mostly landlocked nation. It has just four warm-water ports, with possibly its most important one, the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, existing along the Black Sea. Since Turkey controls the entry point to the Black Sea for Russia, Moscow must adhere to Turkish rules.

One of Turkey’s rules has been to deny access to aircraft carriers in the Black Sea under the Montreux Convention. With a displacement of nearly 62,000 tons, Admiral Kuznetsov is the largest warship ever built by Russia. But it can also transit the Turkish Strait, because it comes just under the requirements of the Montreux Convention. 

Admiral Kuznetsov has a sloped ski-jump flight deck, which enables conventional takeoffs and landings of its naval aircraft, including Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters. Of course, the ski-jump is highly limiting, which is why the United States prefers to use catapults to fling its aircraft into the air. The Soviets and later the Russians simply did not have the technical skills or funding to install such capabilities on this model of carrier. 

The carrier itself has been plagued by technical issues, accidents, and maintenance problems throughout its more than 30 years in service to Russia. These problems have severely limited the carrier’s usefulness to Russia and has ensured Admiral Kuznetsov is little more than a sunk cost for Russia’s navy.

Russia’s Love Affair with a Failed Aircraft Carrier

Russia’s decision to maintain the aging Kuznetsov can be attributed to national pride as well as a fear of a capabilities gap. Russia already is behind the Americans, and now the Chinese, when it comes to carrier operations. Should Moscow let the decrepit Admiral Kuznetsov be retired, it could mean a lost generation of carrier capabilities for their navy. 

Then again, the wayward carrier spends most of its time in the shipyard, begging the question of whether those capabilities are already lost to Russia. Money might be better spent actually building a new generation of decent carriers.

As if unable to let go, Moscow is apparently investing to extend the service life of this failed carrier by another 25 years. The modernization efforts will include upgrades to the carrier’s air defense systems, propulsion, and flight deck, among other investments.

Despite their insistence that the carrier will be modernized, though, there is much evidence to suggest that the carrier is dead and cannot be modernized anymore. Regardless of what speculation exists on the internet and among analysts, Admiral Kuznetsov is an objectively awful flattop that should have been scrapped 30 years ago.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. All photos are of various submarine styles. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority closed its investigation into Google and Apple app stores on 21 August, but new laws that would give it more power to control the dominance of big tech companies could ensure that scrutiny continues.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long viewed Taiwan as a breakaway province, despite never having governed the self-ruling island. Recent reports suggest that China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) may employ a strategy involving three aircraft carriers in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) approach to deter foreign intervention during a potential invasion of Taiwan.

-These carriers, supported by long-range missiles, would be positioned east of Taiwan in the Philippine Sea, out of range of Taiwan's anti-ship missiles.

-However, analysts argue that despite PLAN's growing capabilities, a successful invasion of Taiwan remains highly challenging.

-Taiwan's defenses, combined with potential U.S. and allied intervention, could severely complicate China's plans, making a quick victory unlikely and sustainable resupply for China's forces difficult.

Three Aircraft Carriers to Conquer Taiwan? 

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never actually controlled Taiwan, which is a self-ruling island that was under Japanese occupation until the end of the Second World War when it was then returned to Nationalist Chinese control. Yet, Beijing maintains that it is a breakaway province that will be returned to mainland rule and by force if necessary.

Taking the island, which has a mountainous jungle interior that not even the occupying Japanese never fully subjugated during World War II. Needless to say, it would be difficult, as the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would have to mount numerous amphibious landings – crossing the Taiwan Straits.

It is now speculated that Beijing's efforts to build aircraft carriers while countering the U.S. Navy's fleet of flattops would be key to such a plan.

According to a new report from the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), cited by the Taipei Times on Tuesday, China's "Taiwan Strategy" may call for the use of three carriers, which would engage in a strategy of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) around the island.

"In the quarterly report, the council cited declassified documents from the Ministry of National Defense that categorized China's carriers as a threat if used for A2/AD, and said that China might coordinate its naval, air force, and rocket force capabilities to operate beyond the first island chain and deter foreign forces from getting involved in a conflict involving Taiwan," the Taipei Times news piece laid out.

Three Carrier Strategy

The PLAN is currently conducting sea tests on its third – and second domestically-built – aircraft carrier, the Type 003 Fujian, while efforts have been made to further improve the Type 001 Liaoning and Type 002 Shandong. According to the MAC report, the carriers wouldn't be employed in the invasion and instead could be positioned in the Philippine Sea, well outside of Taiwan's Xiangfeng missiles, which have a range of 200km to 250km.

The carriers would support PLAN forces east of the self-ruling island to serve as a deterrent to foreign aid. The carriers and other warships would be supported by China's so-called "carrier killer" DF-21D and DF-26B anti-ship missiles that could be positioned to strike any approaching U.S. fleet.

"The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force would deploy medium and long-range conventional ground-attack and anti-ship ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles to foreign forces in the area between the first and second island chains," the report added.

A War of Attrition

While the report warned what Taiwan might face, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun highlighted that even as the PLAN is being transformed into a "blue water navy," it may not be enough for it to successfully invade Taiwan and establish a beachhead that could lead to control of the island.

Taipei has anti-ship missiles that could be employed against an approaching armada, while the Taiwanese Navy would need to rely on submarines to counter the PLAN's carriers – further emphasizing the need for the self-ruling island nation to continue the development and production of its domestically-built submarines.

Su further noted that any attempt to employ an A2/AD strategy would require that the carriers would be "sandwiched" between Taiwan and a U.S. fleet from Hawaii and Guam.

"Thoughts to the contrary are simply wishful thinking on the part of the Chinese," the Taiwanese analyst added.

The PLAN would need to see quick success, as its carriers and other warships would need supplies within just a week or two.

"Since the passage of supply ships through the Bashi Channel or Miyako Strait would be too dangerous, and China has no overseas bases, supplying the carriers would be impossible," explained Su. "Any advantage brought by the carriers would be quickly lost."

It is also unclear if the MAC report lays out what role South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia – not to mention India – might react if Beijing were to mount an attack on Taiwan. It is unlikely that some of Taipei's allies and regional partners would simply sit by, while other regional rivals of Beijing might see it as an opportunity to gain an upper hand in the South China Sea and far beyond.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

C’était l’une des maladies les plus redoutées du XXe siècle et elle a causé environ 500 millions de morts. Mais grâce à une campagne de santé, le monde a réussi à l’éradiquer.

Bartłomiej Ciączyński has resigned from his post as Polish deputy justice minister after it emerged that he used an official car for a private holiday in Slovenia and fuelled it with public money.

Here Comes the Light Fighter? The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a fifth-generation air superiority fighter, remains unmatched in its capabilities, yet it was developed during an era when the U.S. military's focus shifted away from near-peer conflicts.

-As global threats evolve, particularly with the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, the U.S. Air Force is looking towards the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to replace the F-22. However, the NGAD faces significant challenges, including its high cost, which could limit fleet size and affect long-term viability.

-There is a growing emphasis on adaptability and modularity in future aircraft designs, potentially leading to a "light fighter" concept that could be more cost-effective and flexible in addressing future threats.

NGAD Becomes Light Fighter? 

The United States Air Force remains the sole operator of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which despite no air-to-air kills against a manned aircraft has been described as the world's top air superiority fighter. The aircraft, developed at the tail end of the Cold War and entered production following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, could be described as the right fighter just at the wrong time. It wasn't what the U.S. military needed as it became engaged in the Global War on Terror (GWoT) and it seemed that the days of conflict with a near-peer adversary were a thing of the past.

How the times have changed.

The GWoT wasn't ever won and arguably continues as elements like ISIS-K continue to operate – including an alleged planned attack earlier this month on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna. Yet, even before Russia mounted its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine more than two-and-a-half years ago, it seemed that the "Evil Empire" – the term the late great Ronald Reagan (got it right this time) used to describe the Soviet Union – was returning, or at least in the mind of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At the same time, China increasingly rattles sabers as it seeks to take its (self-perceived) rightful place on the world stage. To the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership in Beijing, this was to be China's century.

Perhaps the F-22 is what is needed now, except we must remember that it was developed back when Reagan was still eating jellybeans in the Oval Office. This brings us to today, when the Air Force has been exploring a replacement for the Raptor.

Enter the NGAD

The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program has sought to develop a systems of systems, including a manned sixth-generation fighter supported by unmanned "loyal wingmen." It would seem exactly what is needed for a potential – yet unthinkable – conflict with a near-peer adversary such as China or Russia, and more importantly serve as a deterrent to ensure that such a conflict doesn't start.

The issue is the cost.

Each NGAD manned fighter could cost upwards of as much as three times that of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, bringing the total price tag to around $300 million per aircraft. That has led to concerns that the air service would have to reduce the number of aircraft in its fleet, which in turn means that losing any in accidents would be devastating, while critics have warned that combat losses would impact the Air Force's ability to effectively fight future wars.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

Another concern is that the aircraft developed today may not be the aircraft needed tomorrow. The F-22 Raptor was born out of the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which began in 1981! In other words, many of the pilots flying the Raptor today weren't even born when fighters were being designed.

To push that point home, cable TV was still a new thing and VHS was "cutting edge" technology to watch movies in the home. Given the leap forward in technology in recent years, Pentagon officials are right to express concerns that an expensive fighter will be viable in decades to come.

Department of the Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall warned earlier this year that efforts are underway to streamline the NGAD fighter's design, and that could include a "less complex" aircraft equipped with a potentially "smaller engine" that could lower future costs.

"The family of systems concept of Next Generation Air Dominance is alive and well," Kendall told Defense News in an interview. "I can tell you that we are looking at the NGAD platform design concept to see if it's the right concept or not. … We're looking at whether we can do something that's less expensive and do some trade-offs there."

NGAD as a Light Fighter

The NGAD likely will continue, but as noted by Harrison Kass for The National Interest, the evolution of the aircraft could be to a "light fighter." Kass based his analysis on comments made by U.S. Air Force General David Allvin at the Global Air and Space Chiefs' Conference hosted by the UK's Air and Space Power Association in London late in July – where Allvin suggested there needs to be a shift away from a "built to last" philosophy that was commonplace in the Cold War to a "built to adapt" philosophy of today.

"On paper such a shift makes sense. Technology is improving at exponential rates. Modularity is becoming an expectation, allowing airframes to upgrade incrementally with new software and new avionics as technology becomes available. Making rigid technological commitments to a multi-billion-dollar platform that could become outdated in years rather than decades seems foolhardy. An emphasis on adaptability would ensure any new airframe could stick around for a little while," wrote Kass.

The details of such a light fighter are vague, to say the least, and certainly not written in stone. Yet, it should be stressed that Allvin holds an Astronautical Engineering degree from the U.S. Air Force Academy as well as a Master of Science, and Master of Airpower Art and Science degrees.

Given his insight, it may be possible to glean some insight into what the future light fighter could resemble.

"The Light Fighter would be built on adaptability, not ruggedness," wrote Kass. "Allvin envisioned a jet that would rely on open systems architecture, modular design, digital engineering, and 3d-printing/additive manufacturing – techniques and concepts to improve an airframe repeatedly over time."

So could we see a sixth-generation light fighter in the future? Time will tell, of course, but it is also as likely that the NGAD could go another direction – focused more on an entirely unmanned system controlled remotely. Perhaps the days of pilots in the cockpits of fighter planes will be a relic of the past… much like those old VHS players that were the rage when the F-22 was still on the drawing board.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Après une première flambée épidémique en 2022, la Mpox, aussi appelée « variole du singe », sévit à nouveau, obligeant l’OMS à déclencher une urgence de santé publique de portée internationale de manière à coordonner une coopération internationale. Qu’est-ce que la Mpox et quel est son potentiel épidémique ? Que nous dit la multiplication des zoonoses de nos pratiques ? Le point avec le Dr Anne Sénéquier, co-directrice de l’Observatoire de la santé mondiale de l’IRIS, pour qui la Mpox doit nous faire repenser notre approche sanitaire en la poussant sur une approche intégrée et transversale, propre au concept « One Health/Une santé ».

Qu’est-ce que la Mpox ?

Zoonose émergente, la Moox est provoquée par un virus à ADN du genre orthopoxvirus.   Son identification à Copenhague au Danemark en 1958 au sein d’un groupe de singe lui a valu son nom de « variole du singe », une appellation porteuse de fausses informations et à haut risque de stigmatisation, qui a poussé l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) à en changer le nom pour « MPox » en 2022. Une nécessité d’autant plus pertinente que l’hôte naturel du virus MPox est en fait un rongeur de l’Afrique équatoriale : le rat de Gambie ou écureuils de forêt. À ce jour, le réservoir animal n’est pas encore formellement identifié, mais une analyse de l’ADN du virus a plutôt révélé des passages multiples chez différents animaux forestiers.

La Mpox provoque fièvre, éruptions cutanées au niveau du visage, mains, pieds, corps et régions génitales, ainsi que des maux de tête, des douleurs musculaires, le tout accompagné d’une fatigue importante. Bénigne dans la majorité des cas, on peut voir apparaitre des complications comme des surinfections cutanées ou des septicémies chez les personnes vulnérables (les personnes immunodéprimées, les femmes enceintes et les jeunes enfants).

La maladie peut se transmettre par voie cutanée, le peau à peau (par l’intermédiaire des pustules et croûtes), par voie sexuelle, et de manière indirecte via le contact de literie et/ou linges contaminés. La transmission aéroportée via les gouttelettes respiratoires d’une personne infectée est également possible.

Il existe deux types de virus Mpox : le clade 1 provenant du bassin du fleuve Congo en Afrique centrale est associé à des symptômes plus sévères (taux de mortalité pouvant aller jusqu’à 10%) et au mode de transmissions interhumaines plus efficace ; le clade 2 provenant d’Afrique de l’Ouest, avec un taux de mortalité plus faible (inférieur à 1%) et à la transmission interhumaine moins efficace.

Quel est le potentiel épidémique de la Mpox ?

En 2022, la flambée épidémique était portée par le clade 2b (un variant du clade 2), ce qui a permis, malgré la forte diffusion du virus, de maintenir un taux de létalité inférieur à 1%. Une épidémie qui avait déclenché une urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI) devant l’émergence de la pathologie dans 110 pays à travers le monde.

Cette année, cependant, le déclenchement de l’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI) porte bien sur la Mpox, mais sur un variant du clade 1 baptisé « Clade 1b ». Il est donc porteur d’une mortalité (5 à 10%) et d’une contagiosité supérieure à l’épidémie de 2022.

Détectée pour la première fois en 1970 chez l’humain, la Mpox est endémique (présente de manière constante) en République démocratique du Congo depuis une dizaine d’années. Depuis, le nombre de cas ne cesse d’augmenter chaque année. 2024 a marqué une augmentation de +160% par rapport à 2023, alors que nous ne sommes qu’en milieu d’année avec 15 600 cas et 537 décès.

Le Clade 1b est apparu en septembre 2023 au nord-Est de la RDC près de Goma, une région de gangrenée par les conflits depuis le milieu des années 90. On y trouve de nombreux camps de déplacés dans lequel le virus circule déjà.

Au mois de juillet, 90 cas de « Mpox clade 1b » ont été identifiés dans les 4 pays voisins : le Burundi, le Kenya, le Rwanda et l’Ouganda, tout en sachant que de nombreux autres cas sont probablement passés sous les radars de la détection épidémiologique. L’OMS a en conséquence déclenché l’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI) le 14 août dernier.

La déclaration de l’état d’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI), permet de coordonner une coopération internationale afin de limiter l’étendue de l’épidémie le plus rapidement possible. Elle a pour objectif de rassembler les différents acteurs et partenaires (Gavi, Unicef, etc.) pour amplifier la réponse vaccinale, en facilitant administrativement et logistiquement le processus de mobilisation des stocks de vaccination. La vaccination contre la Mpox se fait aujourd’hui avec les stocks de vaccination contre la variole humaine, mais également avec un vaccin spécifique à la Mpox approuvé récemment. Une riposte dont le coût initial est estimé à 15 millions d’US$ par l’OMS.

Des cas viennent d’apparaître sur d’autres continents : un en Suède, un autre au Pakistan. Avec une période d’incubation de 5 à 21 jours, il est fort probable de voir apparaitre d’autres cas dans les jours et semaines à venir.

L’appartenance de la Mpox à la famille des orthopoxvirus est à la fois une chance et une difficulté supplémentaire.

Une chance parce que c’est un virus apparenté à l’« orthopoxvirus variola » (la variole) éradiqué en 1980 par une campagne mondiale de vaccination mené par l’OMS. Par conséquent les personnes ayant été vaccinées dans leur enfance contre la variole sont protégées. Ils bénéficient de ce que l’on appelle une immunité croisée : la vaccination contre la variole protège à 85% contre la Mpox, tout en maintenant un taux de reproduction inférieur à 1, ce qui a permis d’éviter jusqu’en 2022 une épidémie à grande échelle.

Mais c’est également une difficulté parce qu’on ne vaccine plus contre la variole depuis les années 1980 (au moment de son éradication). De fait, les personnes de moins de 40-50 ans ne sont pas vaccinées, ce qui entrave de manière évidente l’immunité collective des populations. Nous nous retrouvons au niveau mondial avec une immunité collective diminuée impliquant un potentiel épidémique augmenté.

C’est ce qui explique, entre autres, le nombre croissant de cas annuels en RDC ces dernières années.

Comment lutter contre la Mpox ? Pourquoi observe-t-on autant de zoonoses ces dernières années ? 

La fréquence des épidémies et leur impact dans les populations ne cessent d’augmenter ces dernières années. La Mpox a quitté la lisière des forêts tropicales pour s’étendre d’abord localement, puis jusqu’aux zones urbaines, d’où elles se sont catapultées dans le monde entier.

Depuis 2018, la Mpox s’est exportée depuis le Nigéria (plus grand foyer de population africain) vers le Royaume-Uni, Israël, les États-Unis et Singapour sans être en mesure de donner lieu à des clusters.

En 2022, une première épidémie mondiale avait nécessité de tirer la sonnette d’alarme : déclenchant une USPPI. Entre début 2022 et mi 2023 (fin de l’USPPI), quasi 90 000 cas ont été rapportés dont 147 décès. Nous voilà en 2024 avec un variant plus transmissible et plus virulent, jeté dans notre mondialisation devenue pathogène.

La Mpox est une zoonose, une maladie de la faune sauvage qui a su, à la faveur de l’augmentation des interactions avec l’homme, sauter la barrière de l’espèce.

Cette rencontre du monde sauvage et de notre humanité s’explique par la déforestation massive et la destruction de ces habitats. Un phénomène qui entraîne une perte de biodiversité déstructurant les dynamiques des communautés animales. Le changement d’usage des terres (agriculture dans les forêts à la recherche de terre fertile), l’urbanisation croissante et les conflits aggravent encore les risques de passage de virus de l’animal à l’humain.

Dans le cas de la Mpox, il nous faut superposer à cette dégradation des écosystèmes due aux activités humaines, une diminution de l’immunité croisée par l’arrêt de la vaccination contre la variole suite à son éradication.

On constate ainsi que se protéger des épidémies n’est pas qu’affaire de vaccination et déclaration d’USPPI. Quatre ans seulement après la première pandémie du 21e siècle, la menace que représente la Mpox doit nous faire repenser notre approche sanitaire en la poussant sur une approche intégrée et transversale, propre au concept « One Health/Une santé ».  Celui-ci met en évidence les liens qui unissent la santé humaine, la santé animale et la santé planétaire. Nous ne pouvons pas maintenir une bonne santé publique dans un monde aux écosystèmes dégradés.

Pour véritablement nous protéger des zoonoses (sujet récurrent du 21e siècle), il nous faut donc prendre soin de nos écosystèmes : limiter de la déforestation et de l’agriculture intensive en bordure de forêts ; changement d’usage des terres ; stopper l’urbanisation galopante en zone forestière ; limiter les conflits… vœux pieux mais n’oublions pas qu’ils permettent l’émergence et/ou recrudescence de pathologie (Polio, cholera, Mpox, etc.)

Il faut donc changer notre manière de faire, et veiller à ce que cela soit accompagné d’un changement de comportement/consommation qui sous-tend cette dégradation des écosystèmes. Un challenge qui peut paraître insurmontable, mais a-t-on vraiment le choix ?

À la manière du changement climatique qui s’impose à notre devoir de faire, la protection de nos écosystèmes devient tout aussi urgente.

L’urgence de santé publique de portée internationale (USPPI) a été créée en 2005. Déclenchée pour la première fois en 2009, elle a été déclenchée 8 fois en 14 ans, avec une petite tendance à être de plus en plus fréquente : Grippe H1N, avril 2009 (continuant en 2010) ; poliovirus, mai 2014 (encore en cours) ; épidémie d’Ebola en Afrique de l’Ouest, août 2014 ; Zika, février 2016 ; épidémie d’Ebola en Kivu (RDC), juillet 2019 ; Covid-19, janvier 2020 ; Mpox (variole du singe), juillet 2022 ; nouvelle déclaration du Mpox, août 2024…

 

La fin de la saison estivale prend une tournure inattendue chez Algérie Ferries. Depuis plusieurs semaines, les pannes de navires et les perturbations persistent, laissant […]

L’article Algérie Ferries : les contrôles se multiplient, deux navires de nouveau retenus en Espagne est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Key Points: The Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is one of the most iconic and versatile aircraft in the U.S. Air Force's fleet. Developed in response to the Air Force's need for a heavy-lift transport plane capable of operating in the challenging environments of Asia, the C-130 has proven its value in a variety of roles.

-From transporting cargo and troops to medical evacuations, reconnaissance, and even serving as the AC-130 gunship, the C-130 has been indispensable. Its ability to take off and land on short, unprepared runways and its long-range capabilities make it a critical asset.

-The latest variant, the C-130J Super Hercules, features advanced systems and continues to serve not only the U.S. but also the militaries of many allied nations.

The Legendary C-130

The Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is probably the most iconic long-serving transportation plane in the U.S. Air Force’s fleet. 

The quadruple-propeller-driven C-130 was a direct response to a critical Air Force need in the mid-20th century. Namely, the Air Force needed a heavy-lift capacity that could reliably operate in the austere environments of Asia. 

The Rise of the C-130

Two major wars in Asia defined the Cold War era – the Korean War and the Vietnam War. 

The geography of Asia is very taxing on technology and military equipment. A key feature of the C-130 Hercules is its reliable capability to land and take off from short, unprepared runways in the thick jungle environments of Asia. 

Indeed, the C-130 was a direct result of lessons the Air Force learned from fighting in Korea. These lessons would be applied to the Vietnam War, where the C-130 acquitted itself with honor.

The Air Force needed a tactical airlifter that could operate near the frontline, too. The C-130 “Herc” performed this vital task. C-130 has a high wing for cargo loading, a rear-loading ramp, and turboprop engines for efficiency and power. Using the turboprop rather than a jet engine made better sense, given the environments where the C-130 would operate. 

Throughout its long service to the Air Force, the C-130 has performed countless mission sets. These birds have been used to transport cargo for the Air Force into combat zones. They have been used for medical evacuations. Paratroopers jump out of these birds, search and rescue operations are undertaken, and reconnaissance missions are part of its repertoire. 

There’s even a similarly iconic gunship variant of the C-130, the AC-130 Specter Gunship. (It’s basically a flying battleship.) Oh, and the C-130 is often used for aerial firefighting missions.

Talk about an impressive list of missions. 

U.S. Special Operations Forces relies on another variant of this bird known as the MC-130. It’s specially built to provide covert insertion/extraction and resupply missions. 

Going the Distance 

C-130s are not just powerful. They can also fly immense distances. With midair refueling as an option, a C-130 Herc can travel 2,361 miles. 

The C-130 is the backbone of U.S. military operations because of the logistical advantages it provides. The Air Force has judiciously upgraded these important planes to keep up with the changing global threat environment. Currently, the Air Force is on the C-130J Super Hercules variant of its fleet. These planes have advanced navigational systems, greater fuel efficiency, and digitized cockpits, to name just a few advances. 

Even more important for the Air Force is the fact that their C-130 is used by the militaries of multiple allied states. Its simpler design and turboprop engines mean it will remain in use for many years to come. The C-130 is one of the most important planes the Air Force has ever used.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Spanish prosecutors are stepping up investigations into hate crimes on social media after the country's two main far-right parties - SALF and VOX - stepped up their bashing of African migrants following the murder of an 11-year-old boy over the weekend, although police later identified the perpetrator as Spanish.

Alger, le 21 août 2024 – La Méditerranée, depuis des siècles, a été un carrefour de civilisations et un lieu d’échanges. Aujourd’hui, elle est malheureusement […]

L’article Tragédie évitée de justesse : Un méthanier algérien sauve 30 migrants au large de la Sardaigne est apparu en premier sur .

Il ne s'agit pas d'histoires tirées d'un roman d'espionnage des années 1960, mais d'événements réels survenus en Allemagne cette année.

L’acharnement médiatique contre Imane Khelif a provoqué le licenciement d’une célèbre journaliste américaine de la chaine sportive ESPN. En attendant que d’autres têtes tombent suite […]

L’article L’acharnement contre Imane Khelif provoque le licenciement d’une célèbre journaliste américaine est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Top Points You Need to Know: Fighter jets are iconic symbols of military aviation, representing cutting-edge technology and air superiority. While many fighters have become legendary, aviation history also includes several poorly designed and underperforming jets. This roundup highlights five of the worst fighter jets: the Yakovlev Yak-38, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23, Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, Heinkel He 162, and Vought F7U Cutlass.

-These aircraft suffered from issues ranging from poor handling and stability to inadequate power and reliability. Despite their flaws, these jets are a reminder that innovation in aviation is often accompanied by trial and error.

Five of the Worst Fighter Jets in Aviation History: From the Yak-38 to the Gutless Cutlass

The fighter jet might be the most iconic aircraft type in the annals of aviation. When your average civilian thinks of an aircraft, the fighter jet is often the image that appears, with its sleek silhouette, roaring engines, and relative instability.

Fighters have progressed since their introduction over 100 years ago. From the simple biplanes of World War One to supersonic, super-cruising, ultra-maneuverable, stealth-capable fifth-generation fighters, the fighter jet is a constantly evolving concept. It is far more than an aviation icon. It is a foundational weapon, integral to war planning and military force structure. Militaries around the world spend vast percentages of their overall budget on fighter design and development. Indeed, the most expensive weapons system in world history is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Fighter platforms are worth the praise and the military investment, especially top airframes like the F-15 Eagle or the F/A-18 Hornet. But aviation history is littered with botched fighter projects. Let’s consider five of the worst fighters of all time. 

Yakovlev Yak-38

The Soviet Union spent the Cold War competing with the West to develop the most capable military technology. When the British unveiled the Harrier GR.1 in 1967 – a “jump jet” capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) – the Soviets scrambled to counter. Their answer was the Yakovlev Yak-38, a VTOL aircraft that performed relatively well. But the integration of the Yak-38’s rear thrust engine and two lift turbofans made the jet deathly difficult to handle. If either of the lift fans failed, the Yak-38 would spin out of control. And because the lift fans were sensitive to dirt and dust (like the kind found in Afghanistan), the lift fans were prone to failure. 

The Yak-38 was also a tactical failure, with just four hardpoints and an operational range limited to just 320 kilometers. When the Soviet Union fell, the Yak-38 was abandoned, whereas the Harrier is still in service today.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

Soviet/Russian aerospace manufacturer Mikoyan-Gurevich has a long history of design accomplishments. The company abbreviation, “MiG,” is synonymous in the West with “enemy aircraft,” and for good reason. But MiG has also produced its fair share of duds.

The MiG-23 was supposed to be another feather in MiG’s cap, like the MiG-15 or the MiG-21 before it. But the sweep-wing MiG-23 proved to be a nightmare, with poor handling, poor stability, and an engine that overheated often and died early.

The MiG-23’s maintenance costs were much higher than expected, and the jet’s combat record much poorer. Deployed in Syria and Iraq, the MiG-23 suffered in encounters against F-4s, F-14s, and F-15s. Even the MiG-21, which the MiG-23 had been designed to replace, bested the MiG-23 in combat. The MiG-23 was unceremoniously retired (except in Syria and North Korea) in favor of the MiG-27.

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

The Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, part of the “Century Series,” was America’s first all-weather supersonic jet fighter, and the first American fighter to feature a delta wing. Entering service in 1956, problems arose immediately.

The F-102, designed to be a high-speed aircraft, failed to reach Mach 1 – the fuselage had to be redesigned to cope with transonic wave drag. After the redesign, the jet was capable of reaching Mach 1.22, but other issues cropped up, requiring a variety of fixes. The Air Force did not apply uniform fixes to the F-102 fleet, so different F-102s had different capabilities.

The F-102’s biggest problem, however, was its safety rating. Out of the 1,000 F-102s produced, 259 were lost to accidents, resulting in the death of 70 pilots. 

Heinkel He 162

Nazi Germany deserves credit for debuting jet technology with the Messerschmitt Me 262. Late in the war (and late in the regime), the Nazis experimented with a death-gasp effort to produce more fighter jets. The result was the Heinkel He 162, aka the “Volksjager,” or People’s Fighter.

The He 162, like the Volkswagen car, was designed to be built as cheaply as possible, and with semi-skilled labor. Why? Because by the end of the war, the Nazis were struggling to keep their war economy humming; they were essentially depleted. Accordingly, the He 162 was built largely from wood, as metal alloys were unavailable. The design was completed in about two months, and as you might assume, the jet flew poorly. Three-hundred He 162s were rushed into action, but it was far too late. Nazi Germany collapsed and the He 162 faded into obscurity without having made an impact on the war. 

Vought F7U Cutlass

The Vought F7U Cutlass was visually distinct. This was a design from the dawn of the jet age, when designs were not standardized and there was room for experimentation. The F7U was a result of said experimentation: It was tailless, with swept wings.

In my opinion, the F7U is very cool looking, and it marked the first time the Americans had built an aircraft with swept wings and an afterburner. The unusual design offered extraordinary ability and agility, but it suffered from a variety of problems. The engine was underpowered, earning the F7U the nickname “Gutless Cutlass.” Similarly, many of the systems were novel and proved unreliable. A poor safety record inspired pilots to stay away, and the jet was retired in 1959.

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.